TRZEPACZ v. JARA (2004)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated March 12, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

 The defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff, who was riding a bicycle, proceeded into an intersection controlled by a stop sign and failed to yield the right of way to his approaching vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1142[a], 1172[a], 1231;  Morgan v. Hachmann, 9 A.D.3d 400, 780 N.Y.S.2d 33;  Nasirudin v. Harry, 8 A.D.3d 540, 778 N.Y.S.2d 699;  Batal v. Associated Univs., 293 A.D.2d 558, 559, 741 N.Y.S.2d 551;  Szczotka v. Adler, 291 A.D.2d 444, 737 N.Y.S.2d 121;  Meliarenne v. Prisco, 9 A.D.3d 353, 780 N.Y.S.2d 30).   The plaintiff's conclusory and speculative assertions in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment concerning the defendant's speed and possible negligence in failing to avoid the accident were unsupported by any competent evidence and, therefore, did not raise a triable issue of fact (see Mora v. Garcia, 3 A.D.3d 478, 479, 771 N.Y.S.2d 138;  Rieman v. Smith, 302 A.D.2d 510, 511, 755 N.Y.S.2d 256;  Lupowitz v. Fogarty, 295 A.D.2d 576, 744 N.Y.S.2d 480;  Bolta v. Lohan, 242 A.D.2d 356, 661 N.Y.S.2d 286;  Meliarenne v. Prisco, supra ).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).